| Author | Message | ||
     Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.80 |
I fell in love with Alice Seabold' second novel when it first came out, and always felt it would one day be made into a film. Now that time has arrived with Peter Jackson's version. I've watched the trailer several times, and it does look and feel like the book. Though how much of that will bear up when actually watching the film, we'll have to see. A interesting cast with Rachel Weiz and Mark Whalberg as the parents. According Wikipedia, one of my favourite actors was originally slated for the role of the dad, Ryan Gosling. Unfortunately, he pulled out over 'creative differences'. Usually this would mean somebody wasn't getting their own way. But with Gosling who has refused a welter of big budget Hollywood paint by number movies to make smaller more interesting films, I wonder if it wasn't down to Jackson, who doesn't exactly have a good reputation among actors for being open to other people's ideas. Apparently, Gosling was fully committed and had piled on the pounds for the role. For anybody wanting to see just how good Gosling is, perhaps he is the natural successor to Penn (my acting god), try Lars and the Real Girl or The Believer. For sentimentalists, try Notebook. For those wanting to see his only true commercial film to date, check out Fracture. Whatever the creative differences were, according to Wikipedia, his praise of Jackson's work of the book, and his view that Mark Whalberg is a much better choice for the role (as he is clearly nearer the age of the father in the book), makes this my must see film of the year so far. Unless somebody makes a sequel to Primer. There, how about that for random waffling early in the morning. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.80 |
Before I forget, check out 'Half Nelson for Gosling's most touted performance. A true knock-out of a role. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
This one should be good. If you've seen Heavenly Creatures you know how good Jackson can be as a serious director. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.80 |
Yes,indeed. This may well be the direction from which he's coming. Heavenly Creatures also boasted key sequences involving fantasy, though The Lovely Bones sequences of our protagonist's heaven are not fantasy within the narrative of the film. Or are they? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Gosling's good, although FRACTURE was insultingly awful. HALF-NELSON was better by far. (Still haven't seen LARS or THE BELIEVER.) As for THE LOVELY BONES, I haven't read the book, but the trailer didn't do much for me. The story seems too familiar, perhaps -- a mishmash of story elements I've already encountered in other movies/books? At any rate, if word of mouth is good, I may go for a rental. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.99 |
Chris - Lars and the Real Girl is one of those films which never misses a beat. Perfect in every way. If I were to tell you the plot, you'd never believe me. Almost as absurd as my family (; Oh, and give The Lovely Bones the book a chance. I thought it was one of those book of the month recommendations that Oprah bloody Winfrey does. Not that she hasn't touted some good book, she has, but I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a slim book considering the time it covers, but it has a simple elegance about it, through its prose and its story. At times rather chilling, which off-sets the more heartfelt moments. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.4.243 |
I hated LARS AND THE REAL GIRL. Ploddy, shoddy, and the thing you constantly wait for the whole movie through - ****What's going on in his head?!?!**** - never explained. I want those 90 minutes back in my life.... I've not seen HALF-NELSON, but I thought Ryan was quite good in the little-seen-for-such-a-ginormous-selling-spec-script STAY (spec sold for about $2 million!... and the film came and went like no one was watching... that's Hollywood....) | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.99 |
Craig - I'll take you to task about Lars in a minute...but yes, STAY, this sounds very interesting. Unfortunately, like the tit I am, I read not the synopsis, but the entire story of the film on-line. Now, here we go again. You and your bloody expectations and templates. Don't give me any guff over having everything explained to you like a baby. You're coming at this from the wrong angle. Bleedin quadrangle if you ask me. Stop judging things from the perspective of a screenplay writer. As for Half Nelson, go and watch it. Some imbecile once described it to me as a 'improvement on Dangerous Minds', which meant I had to hit him over the head with a heavy pulsating object. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
You hit him over the head with your penis? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.99 |
Zed - well, yes, as a matter of fact. Thank God for that (breathes a sigh of audible relief), I didn't think my oblique self-referencing would work. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.8.98 |
So you hitting him over the head with your penis, Frank - did that mean you did or didn't agree with the guy?... Why did Lars get this girl in the first place? Did he think it was real or not? What did he think others would think of it? Why did everyone around him mollycoddle the loony bastard? Why would the director create this movie knowing people would wonder these issues and not ADDRESS them? Why, why, why?!? Sometimes, a writer/director is being artistic for not "explaining" things. Sometimes, they're just incompetent, confused, and trying to pull a fast one on you. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.99 |
Craig - nonsense (makes a big wet fart sound). | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
"Why would the director create this movie knowing people would wonder these issues and not ADDRESS them? Why, why, why?!? " Specifically to piss off idiots | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.241.219 |
That's why I'm out there, Weber - taking the bullets for you. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
I don't think Craig's complaints have anything to do with his template theory. A writer's first job is to make his story convincing. That's so important I'm going to say it again: A writer's first job is to make his story convincing. No matter how good the material is, a story is a failure if it doesn't somehow persuade a reader/viewer to believe in it. That being said, I still haven't seen LARS, so I can't say for sure how plausible the story is. All I can say is that I sympathize with Craig's concerns. To be fair, though, in some cases, the problem isn't with the film at all -- it's that some viewers are easier to convince than others. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.87 |
Chris - I have to disagree that a writer's first job is to make his story convincing. It may be the consideration of a large percentage of writers, but that doesn't mean this constitutes a clad iron rule which shouldn't be broken. I would agree that a writer should persuade the reader to believe in the story, but that doesn't mean the story should have to be convincing. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.87 |
To briefly elaborate, using film as a starting point, take nearly any David Lynch film, exempting 'The Straight Story', and asking the viewer to accept the story as convincing is entirely different than asking them to believe in the story. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.87 |
Or perhaps put it like this: the viewer or reader don't always need explanations, but in fact are sometimes entertained, satisfied or even educated by films or books which do not end neatly, or are fully explained. I also don't think it's entirely the case that some viewers are easier to convince than others. We've all seen movies which leave us sometimes perplexed, with us asking one another for interpretations. Surely there's room for both kinds of story? | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
Paul Auster wouldn't have a career if you had to explain what your stories were about. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.87 |
Exactly. His New York trilogy case in point. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> I would agree that a writer should persuade the reader to believe in the story, but that doesn't mean the story should have to be convincing. No, no. I'm using the phrases "convince" and "persuade the reader to believe" as synonyms. By this I don't mean that everything is explained, just that the things that aren't explained don't destroy the reader's (or viewer's) ability to suspend disbelief. >> I also don't think it's entirely the case that some viewers are easier to convince than others. Every character trait is on a bell curve, no? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.240.19 |
Thanks, Chris - I do think you'd agree with me on LARS - of course it's not about simple believability, or fantasy elements, or explanations of "what happened." But it's about (to simplify this tremendously) the Universe being established: the Universe established in LARS, imho, would demand we know the answers to the questions I posed above - it wasn't ME going out there saying it needed answering, but the UNIVERSE of that movie that necessarily would have required it, and it didn't. It would be like watching a murder mystery, and then you reach the end, and the crime is not solved, and you complain, and the creator says, "Why the hell do I have to tell you who did it?" Because you created Universe that was leading up to that, so you screwed with me - oh wait, that's already happened before: BLOW UP.  | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Oddly enough, I love Blow Up. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.77.243 |
... oddly enough, so do I....  But not LARS AND THE REAL GIRL. Forget how it doesn't explain his "getting in" to his situation - wait till you see how the film handles his "getting out" of it - a complete waste of my time. Though I do love everything Patricia Clarkson does, she's just such a fine actress herself.... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.103 |
Fair enough, chaps. I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't hate me for this Craig, but I've never seen Blow Up, well, not unless you mean De Palma's Blow Up (: Yes, I know I should have. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.163.177.179 |
This reminds me of Fringe, which I DESPISE. Seriously - if that old guy says 'I have an invention I made decades ago that will entirely solve this problem' I am going to seek out that actor and kill him with my bare hands. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.103 |
Sorry, Tony, not with you...blame it on my limited ability to think or associate. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.250.67 |
De Palma's BLOW OUT was a direct homage to BLOW UP, and I seem to remember it being pretty lousy.... There's a stiflingly depressing pall I find - it's probably just me - over many early De Palma horror/thriller films - like BLOW OUT, and DRESSED TO KILL, and OBSESSION, and SISTERS... and CARRIE too... not that they're bad, just something about their style, depresses me.... | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.68 |
Craig - maybe it's the obvious with De Palma's early work, and even some of his later films, that they are basically him doing Hitchcock. Maybe this 'pall' is his acknowledgment that this is what he does, and only this. Self-realization? An inability to escape what he grew up loving? Personally I loved Blow Out. In fact, I love all of De Palma's early work. Hitchcockian, rip-off, whatever the critics have levelled at him, I've always found him an absorbing director. I think he wears his flaws quite proudly sometimes, as much as his technique. You've got to give him credit for being one of the most imaginative visual directors America has ever produced, even if his visuals and style have themselves been aped and copied, as he aped and copied Hitchcock. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.250.67 |
I do like De Palma... don't get me wrong, Frank.... You can't stop watching a De Palma movie, that's for sure, even a super-lousy one like SNAKE EYES. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.68 |
Yes, Snake Eyes. Absolute shite. But impossible to stop watching just in case he pulls the magical rabbit out of the hat. Craig, if you think that's bad, what about Femme Fatale? If you haven't seen it, try and guess which of the endings no self-respecting writer, screenplay writer or director would ever possibly contemplate. It's easy. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
BLOW OUT is possibly my favourite De-Palma film. It's crazy, but in a brilliant way. And that ending...yowza! | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.68 |
Zed - I'm a huge fan of Obsession. I remember I drank a whole bottle of red wine that night, then woke up in the middle of the night and started vomiting copious amounts of a red substance into the toilet, which at the time I thought was blood. A minute or two later I realized why. I also love 'The Untouchables' it's rewriting of history forgiven for the sheer scale of that beauty. Also the usual suspects: Carrie, Scarface, and even Mission Impossible. But not Mission to Mars. Would have liked it if he hadn't resorted to an ending that a five year old would have thrown out as old hat. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I always liked the one with Melanie Griffith. Utterly mental film, but great fun. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 213.158.199.68 |
Christ, forgot that. Yes, Body Double? Fantastic. Really disturbing work. Much better than the over-rated 8mm, which ran in a similar vein - it had good performances, though. Phantom of Paradise is something of a cult favourite, but I think I must of missed the boat on that one. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
It's official... Peter Jackson has lost the plot! I went to see 'The Lovely Bones' last night and never in all my long cinema-going years have I witnessed such a sappy, sentimental, spew inducing, sugary load of old wish-fulfillment bollocks as this!! It's the first of Jackson's movies I found myself actively hating as I was watching it. I loved all his work up to and including 'The Frighteners' and was wowed, like everyone else, at the time by his 'Lord Of The Rings' adaptations and even, for most of its length, by 'King Kong' but I cannot overlook just how nauseating 'The Lovely Bones' is... A crying shame to see a once great and fiercely original talent reduced to this populist drivel. I wanted to watch the vilest video nasty I could get my hands on afteward just to negate some of the cloying Mom's apple pie sweetness - Yeuuchh!! If you treasure your sanity (not to mention your dinner) avoid at all costs!!!! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.27.30.20 |
You didn't like it, then? | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I had some issues with it...  | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I liked the film, and saw no sentimentalism in it - certainly not by D. H. Lawrence's definition (which I think is the best one). Given the 12A rating I assumed that the material had been sanitised, but I really don't think it has. It's reticently presented, but those who know their Faulkner may well have thoughts about that corncob beside Stanley Tucci's bath. I found the film moving and disturbing, much like the novel (to which Jenny actually preferred it). | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
See I told ya I was just a grouchy old cynic... | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.110.123 |
I think I struggled more with the ending than any other aspect, the icicle scene. It just felt a bit clumsy/convenient. And Susan Sarandon, who felt like an add-on, a panto dame. I also never felt like I got to the heart of that family - they felt apart somehow (I suppose they were meant to be), each acting in their own films. Mark Wahlberg was also a little unconvincing as a 'thinker' dad. My overally sense of softness came from the heaven scenes, which felt too artifical in that 80s pop video sense. I didn't feel I was seeing heaven, or limbo. It's funny, but my potted review to someone recently was that it was the first film I think I disliked that I really liked, because criticisms aside I still had a soft spot for it. I never made that clear when we were talking about it before. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.110.123 |
'This reminds me of Fringe, which I DESPISE. Seriously - if that old guy says 'I have an invention I made decades ago that will entirely solve this problem' I am going to seek out that actor and kill him with my bare hands.' 'Sorry, Tony, not with you...blame it on my limited ability to think or associate.' Sorry, erm, Frank - I have no idea why I wrote that at all. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
The icicle scene actually made me angry it was so lame after all that had led up to it but the real problem was the atrocious depiction of the afterlife (truly nauseating) and the heroine's saccharine voiceover that really started to get on my nerves. The acting, apart from the underused Sarandon, I found strangely lifeless and devoid of passion. Also why did they have to have that sensitive goth character wandering about in the background picking up hints of a presence and all that old guff - better stop as I'm starting to remember all the things I hated and don't want to spend the night grinding my teeth lol. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Not that this is a justification in itself, Stephen, but all those elements are true to the novel. I liked the odd inconsequentiality of the icicle scene - after all, she isn't meant to be able to accomplish much in terms of intervention, and more than that would have seemed contrived, I think. As for the afterlife, I thought it was very much a young teenager's - exactly what it's supposed to be - and Jackson does comment on this by having Holly eating popcorn while they observe life on earth. More irony than that would have been inconsistent and obtrusive, I think - too knowing. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I haven't read the novel, Ramsey, and really don't think it would be my cup of tea. Having said that I have nothing against sentimental afterlife fantasies when they're done right, and would rank 'A Matter Of Life And Death' & 'Heaven Can Wait' as among my very favourite films in any genre. But it is a very fine balancing act to judge without sliding into patronising wish-fulfillment and I'm afraid, for me, Peter Jackson just couldn't pull it off. If he'd tried adapting the same story in the early 90s [I know not physically possible], before he hit it big, I believe it would have been a much finer and subtler film. But on the evidence of the finished product here (on a purely personal level) I think he really has lost his touch as an instinctive director. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
I saw this recently and I have to say that while it's certainly the "least good" of Jackson's films so far, it's certainly not the abject failure that Mr Walsh claims it to be. I thought the family was conveyed with a great sense of reality, teh family dynamic felt true to life and not to sweet or sentimental. The passing from life to death of the lead was suitably nightmarish and some of the SFX were quite remarkable - in particular the cornfield moving like it was the sea was particulaly convincing (although this was balanced out by some very twee and cliched fx towards the end - the other victims emerging from the twinkly lights - ugh). The biggest weakness of the film to me was the killer - he looked and behaved far too much like Herr Lipp. I was expecting him to say "alles klaar" as he lured her into his underground den. There were sections of the film where I could truly understand why the book won an award for best horror novel - something I didn't understand while reading the book. All in all it was a very faithful adaptation of the book. With some of the cliche effects replaced, it could have been a very good film. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
It was pants! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Lovely comfy lucky pants. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.155.48.119 |
I watched this again last night, the second time, and have changed my tune - I really enjoyed it, was gripped from start to finish. I think it's Mr Jackson's second best film after Heavenly Creatures. Phew - I LIKE liking films. The lads both liked it too, for what that's worth (and it's a lot - they have good taste). | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.156.210.82 |
I got slated all over the place for liking this film, Tony. Didn't change my opinion one iota; I thought it was splendid. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.66.23.11 |
I really enjoyed it myself. The death sequence itself was really nightmarish | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.66.23.11 |
But I think Bad Taste is his best film (or maybe Brain dead - I switch between those two on a regular basis) if only for the exploding sheep. And before anyone tries to lamb-blast me about cheap humour, I have no problem with cheap humour and enjoy it as much as the most well crafted word play. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I'm with Weber in preferring Jackson's early imaginative films to his later more polished efforts. Yes, 'Heavenly Creatures' was a masterpiece, 'The Frighteners' was a joy, his 'Lord Of The Rings' films were as close to a visual realisation of the books as we're ever likely to get but 'King Kong' is when he started to believe his own hype and became lost in self-indulgence... resulting in the saccharine mess that was 'The Lovely Bones'. I'm praying the influence of Hergé and Spielberg's excellent example in 'The Secret Of The Unicorn' rekindles some of the man's filmmaking nous. But I'm growing increasingly nervous at the prospect. Still, 'Red Rackham's Treasure' is such a strong narrative that surely the least we can expect is a return to the ultra-professionalism of TLOTR. But no matter how many films he goes on to make the man will never be able to top the genius of 'Bad Taste', 'Meet The Feebles' & 'Braindead'. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.34.237 |
Ooh, just got the Blu ray of this - it's absolutely beautiful. I think it's one of his best films. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.34.237 |
Hand on heart, he's getting better (and this from me who was initially unsure about both Bones and Kong, and LOVED Heavenly Creatures). | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 31.53.146.180 |
I don't think the man has made a bad film yet. I could actually understand why The Lovely Bones won an award for best horror novel after seeing the film. I didn't understand it after reading the book. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 31.53.146.180 |
Just realised I've repeated myself from earlier on in this thread. Ah well |